News Stories

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is interesting, though what would the cost actually be like; and the hidden costs?

Anything that involves tax dollars are sensitive social issues.

Costs would likely be rolled into the fees charged to passengers. After 9/11 passengers began paying a "Transportation Security Fee" of $5.60 per passenger per flight. ATC is covered by a 7.5% tax on the ticket price plus $3.90 per "segment." The ATC fees generate about $10 billion per year.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

So if someone goes crazy enough to want to crash a plane, he won't even have to be in it?

the control can only turn the auto pilot on. They can't do anything else.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Except that those don't sit in the cockpit. And even if they did - any physically normal male can incapacitate another one in a surprise attack at close quarters. This problem won't really be solved, ever.

Isn't that just 1v1? What if there can be like 10 people inside the cockpit ?

But of course, this is WAY too costly to implement solely for rare incidence...

Maybe a mix of Xello's "skynet" with the control centre being based inside some highly secure military base.

[SaintessHeart]

U.S. Role in Botched Philippines Raid Comes Under Scrutiny

Wait.

You plan. You screw up. And it is someone else's fault?

[ganbaru]

Yemen war clouds raise dangers for top oil shipping route
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MM2JX20150326

Senate passes Republican budget with deep safety net cuts
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MN0LR20150327

Exclusive: Upset by Warren, U.S. banks debate halting some campaign donations
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MN0BV20150327

[SeijiSensei]

From the article on banks' contributions to Democrats:

The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material

Senatorial campaigns average some $10 million these days so that is just a drop in the bucket. Whether it would affect contributions to PACs, which can be made anonymously, is another story. As one of Senator Warren's constituents I wholeheartedly endorse her advocacy of breaking up the large money-center banks. One of the sad ironies of the policies employed to resolve the financial crisis of 2008 was the reduction in the number of large banks to now just four on the grounds of providing greater "stability" and liquidity. The anti-competitive aspects of these policies were swept under the rug.

[Mr Hat and Clogs]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

I hope this news doesn't make you sad/angry/whatever.

Jeremy Clarkson Officially Fired From Top Gear

Jeremy maybe responsible for Top Gear's massive popularity but he was also a controversial figure due to the things he said and his behavior. While the BBC may have tolerated Jeremy due to his popularity on Top Gear, his fracas with a producer was the final straw and wasn't worth it.

I believe the BBC made the right decision of firing him since keeping him will just give people the wrong message that anyone who acts like an ass can get away with anything as long as they are popular.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/rip...rkson-sacking/

Other guys left too.

The interview with James was funny.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/N6cfFnBNELs

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

U.S. Role in Botched Philippines Raid Comes Under Scrutiny

Wait.

You plan. You screw up. And it is someone else's fault?

The report also blamed the president. But yea, it's just typical politicians.

[SeijiSensei]

Apropos to

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Whether it would affect contributions to PACs, which can be made anonymously, is another story.

Midway into a three-and-a-half hour congressional hearing this week featuring Mary Jo White, the chairwoman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, none of the legislators had bothered to ask if or when her agency would require that corporations disclose their political spending.

The bipartisan silence testified to the growing importance to both parties of anonymous campaign donations. With each passing year since 2010, when the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates to secretive political giving, politicians appear to value so-called “dark money” more and value disclosure of unnamed donors less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/op...ommission.html

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I am wearing my white shirt and black pants, with a black hankerchief as an armband.

Not going to NUS ceremony.


I will however, be at the Padang, Parliament area to follow the motorcade as it leaves

[ganbaru]

In Sudan, an unlikely path to jihad for students
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MN1C920150327

Torn-up sick notes show crash pilot should have been grounded
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0MN11N20150328

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Isn't that just 1v1? What if there can be like 10 people inside the cockpit ?

But of course, this is WAY too costly to implement solely for rare incidence...

Why do that at all? Do you really think that with more people in there, nothing will happen? What if it's not the (co-)pilot, but one of the flight attendants who has ill will? S/he could just enter, then kill or at least incapacitate the (co-)pilot and crash the plane. And even with multiple people in there, it's still no guarantee no one can crash a plane in a suicide attempt. Might be a bit more difficult, but not impossible.

Frankly, I don't think there is much you can do to further ensure the safety of the plane and all those on board. Even removing the human factor altogether and make the plane fully automated will probably carry some risk or another, as there is no such thing as 100% foolproof.

Maybe a mix of Xello's "skynet" with the control centre being based inside some highly secure military base.

The question is though, at which point do you let the pilots do their work, and at which point do you deem the risks high enough to do a manual override (if that would even be possible from afar)?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Why do that at all? Do you really think that with more people in there, nothing will happen? What if it's not the (co-)pilot, but one of the flight attendants who has ill will? S/he could just enter, then kill or at least incapacitate the (co-)pilot and crash the plane. And even with multiple people in there, it's still no guarantee no one can crash a plane in a suicide attempt. Might be a bit more difficult, but not impossible.

Possibly, that co-pilot had one bad moment at the wrong time, when he was alone in the cockpit. Isn't that how most suicides are? One bad moment at the wrong time, when the practical details are easy and painless. Not much planning if any.

How is your hypothetical flight attendant going to single-handedly overpower 9 people at the same time with their bare hands? Or even 2 or 3?

[Dhomochevsky]

In my opinion this is all a pretty mood topic.

If you are going to fly, you ultimately have to put your trust in the pilots. Trust that he is bound by the rules of society, morality or simply self preservation.

This is the basis for all human cooperation. We can not get around this, or society will cease function.

For some reason planes get a lot of special attention, and get a treatment that you would never widen to other fields of transportation, or life in general.

But think about it:
Your bus or taxi driver may decide to sweer into oncoming traffic. That is pretty sure to kill you.
You eat food, which went through the hands of lots of people. It may have been poisened by any of them!
How do you know the guy you just walked past on the street will not stab you in the back?

We have to trust people. We can try to minimize the risks in case of an outside attack (such as terrorists), but we can not safely guard against threats from the inside like this for every possible scenario, or everything would come to a standstill.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

In my opinion this is all a pretty mood topic.

If you are going to fly, you ultimately have to put your trust in the pilots. Trust that he is bound by the rules of society, morality or simply self preservation.

This is the basis for all human cooperation. We can not get around this, or society will cease function.

For some reason planes get a lot of special attention, and get a treatment that you would never widen to other fields of transportation, or life in general.

But think about it:
Your bus or taxi driver may decide to sweer into oncoming traffic. That is pretty sure to kill you.
You eat food, which went through the hands of lots of people. It may have been poisened by any of them!
How do you know the guy you just walked past on the street will not stab you in the back?

We have to trust people. We can try to minimize the risks in case of an outside attack (such as terrorists), but we can not safely guard against threats from the inside like this for every possible scenario, or everything would come to a standstill.

there is no 100% guarantee, however we should minimize the risk as much as possible. That means cameras in the cockpit, overrides form the control tower and if someone is being treated for depression or other mental illness, it should not be up to the employee to tell the employer he no longer qualify to do the job. The Narcissistic sociopath's medical condition should have been automatically reported to Airline company and the Aviation department.

[Dhomochevsky]

External overrides are a problem, because it allows people who are not inside the plane, to control the plane.
This poses a much greater danger than that of a possibly rough pilot.
At least with the current setup of pilot autonomity, the culprit has to go down with the plane, which is usually a pretty good deterrance.

Placing a remote control on a plane, no matter the kind of security placed on the link, would be (in my opinion as an engineer) irresponsible.
There is no unbreakable security system.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

From the article on banks' contributions to Democrats:

Senatorial campaigns average some $10 million these days so that is just a drop in the bucket. Whether it would affect contributions to PACs, which can be made anonymously, is another story. As one of Senator Warren's constituents I wholeheartedly endorse her advocacy of breaking up the large money-center banks. One of the sad ironies of the policies employed to resolve the financial crisis of 2008 was the reduction in the number of large banks to now just four on the grounds of providing greater "stability" and liquidity. The anti-competitive aspects of these policies were swept under the rug.

It's sad that we are now in a situation where it is possible that the systemic risk of the financial system has increased instead of decreased in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

In my opinion this is all a pretty mood topic.

If you are going to fly, you ultimately have to put your trust in the pilots. Trust that he is bound by the rules of society, morality or simply self preservation.

This is the basis for all human cooperation. We can not get around this, or society will cease function.

For some reason planes get a lot of special attention, and get a treatment that you would never widen to other fields of transportation, or life in general.

But think about it:
Your bus or taxi driver may decide to sweer into oncoming traffic. That is pretty sure to kill you.
You eat food, which went through the hands of lots of people. It may have been poisened by any of them!
How do you know the guy you just walked past on the street will not stab you in the back?

We have to trust people. We can try to minimize the risks in case of an outside attack (such as terrorists), but we can not safely guard against threats from the inside like this for every possible scenario, or everything would come to a standstill.

I'm not arguing for the ten people in the cockpit scheme (though it would improve safety) or even Xellos' remote controlled planes.

But OTOH, if something can be done cheaply to improve safety, of planes or buses or food or streets, it bears thinking about.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

Why do that at all? Do you really think that with more people in there, nothing will happen?

Do you really think I was serious with that suggestion when I already pointed out its obvious downside myself?

Even removing the human factor altogether and make the plane fully automated will probably carry some risk or another, as there is no such thing as 100% foolproof.

Indeed it won't be 100% safe, but there can still be room for improvement. It's not about making things perfect, it's about risk minimization.

Frankly, I don't think there is much you can do to further ensure the safety of the plane and all those on board.

You can be right here. But there are some genius out there smarter than me or you. So maybe there's a "non-expensive" way to make it safer, just maybe.

The question is though, at which point do you let the pilots do their work, and at which point do you deem the risks high enough to do a manual override (if that would even be possible from afar)?

How about each crew members carry a switch, and if certain number of crews push the switch, then it would force auto-pilot ?

Not 100% safe per se, but would it make it safer perhaps ?

[Cosmic Eagle]

Just waited three hours in downpour and driving rain to watch LKY's procession.


Whatever one's views of his policies, we still gathered to be there for him


At the end of the day, simple humanity trumps all considerations.


Oyasumi...Mr Lee. Fair winds on your next journey